The Independent and now Unlock Democracy have been carrying pieces drawing attention to some peers who have not declared some interests or who have claimed expenses despite having a poor voting record. This, they contend, makes the case for reform of the House of Lords. They seem to think that this logic is somehow compelling. I was under the impresssion that this made the case for reform in terms of changing and/or enforcing rules. Silly me. It appears that it actually makes the case for an elected second chamber. Fancy me not realising that once one has elected members they will not be making inappropriate expense claims or otherwise behaving inappropriately. Oh, hang on…..